Marty, I read your post...........

I am not stuttering, but trying to address the two conflicting individuals that seem to have created your post. Yes, I did read your post today, but felt that a response required some thought and reading your words more carefully. To that end, I not only read your work, I copied it into my Word and printed it out in order to read it a liesure before penning this response:

Firstly, let me entertain the hope that your reference to the Liberal Arts College was one of jest, since "Liberal Arts" and "Liberalism" are about as much alike as the pates of Bill Yox and Bill Golden. You obviously anticipated negative response and disagreement to your position and began by defending it. That, Marty is a good beginning if you are truly a liberal, as you imply.

Secondly, Marty, being politically correct has absolutely nothing to do with either Liberalism or consertvatism, but rather with a social comprehension of the sensitivities of others, which one would conclude has nothing to do with either side of the aisle.

Liberalism, as you state, has little to do with the politics that bring big government and departmental waste to politics, since that, too takes place on both sides of the aisle. The difference being where the funds are spent and into which party's "Black Hole" they dissappear. Government cannot be "profit driven" as you imply, since Government operates at nearly 100% profit in that they obtain revenue by methods which would be illegal at the private sector. The government is not in the business of manufacturing or harvesting goods and crops, but rather in collecting revenues to spend lavishly at the expense of those taxed. Government does, however have a decided interest in sponsoring economies earning profit, since profit in the private sector translates directly into revenue for the government.

You statement about the high interest rates of loans to other governments is not correct, either. The loans made via the IMF and World Bank, while largely shored up by US Government promises, lie largely un-collected. Most have been forgiven over the years, the funds being replaced by the manificient "G-7" (or is it "G" spot?) nations. Most of the poverty stricken nations are not suffering at the hands of grubby Western financial barons, but as a result of corrupt and inefficient governments of their own sufferage or construction. I can give numerous examples of this activity, but rather than construct that scenario, which would require extensive research to ascertain specific facts, let me cite these random examples: Nigeria, whose tribal war costs millions of lives, did not act out of concern for debts or control by outside influence. They were a fairly prosperous nation that took tribal rivalry to new heights. Eithiopia: Under Iddi Amein, that nation stopped growing food crops in favor of trade crops that could be utilized on the world market to build military strength for a deranged leadership who used the arms to control the general populace. Panama: Noreiga and his cronies conducted all sorts of businesses, both legal and illegal for their personal gain at the expense of the people. Brazil: The United States and the IMF and World Bank lent billions to the Governments of Brazil, yet their internal demand side politics kept inflation rising at a rate two hundred times that of the world's lending nations. The debts were eventually either restructured or forgiven with the exception of one. That loan which was collected in full at illegal interest rates was one made by the Vatican!(I assume that they are conservative money grubbing, profit orientated butt ends for that deed.)

Your demographics and concepts about how the world turns and what makes for world trade are good observations, but you are seeing the tops of the hills and not the valleys underneath that give them a substantial base. Let me put this to you matter-of-factly: The United States has around six percent of the total world's population, yet we consume nearly 85% of the world's finished goods. While, we produce a good portion of the goods ourselves, we still consume more than the remainder of the world combined. Our government is placed in a very difficult position by our demand driven market. In order to insure the flow of goods and raw materials required to keep us all in fairly new cars and allow room for the 2.2 children and 3.5 TV's and homes full of modern conveniences, someone has to do without. It has been estimated (prior to the introduction of the silicone chip) that if the Chinese alone were to have a standard of living equal ours, there wouldn't be enough silver available for the circuitry in home appliances to make them available. Using that standard, it is impossible to elevate the poor nations to our level of comfort. There simply isn't enough goods and raw materials around to do that. In addition, the energy reserves are not available, nor will they be available to even consider that elevation. If you think the third world is pissed now, wait until they figure that one out!

I agree somewhat with your appointment of crucial priorities: As I see it, the order of import for the Utopia some envision is: 1. Cessation of environmental degradation. 2. Combined world efforts to develop fusion energy. 3. Addressing world population growth in a realistic manner. 4. The standardization of global morality and development and utilization of a standard language for all peoples. 5. The de-emphasis on world health in favor of establishing a base for social and economic growth. Saving lives to be spent in misery is incongruent from my point of view. The funds spent on heterogenous research and development are so redundant that it is a miracle that any single research program obtains a result.

To imply that Martin Luther King was a leader, much less a solution is to be naive. He was certainly the man of the hour for the liberation of downtrodden peoples, and a vehicle for national awareness of a social ill, but he was extremely naive about the world's problems and international politics. He was the right man at the right time for his effort, but that is a far cry from his having had the discretionary tools and mental prowess to solve many other problems. (But he was a good Democrat, having had a number of illicit affairs with aides and other women on the sly.)

I can agree with some of your points about the NRA. When I hear that there are 3,000,000 Communist made weapons such as the AK-47 in my nation, I cringe. I still, for obvious reasons, shake when I hear the distinctive chatter of a Kalisnikov firing on a range or at the local shooting spot. I think if ever we fight a war on this land, I will put far more faith in our scatter guns and my long range sweet shooters. The problem with gun control is, Marty, that to give an inch is to give miles to the folks like that Bitch Diane Finestien and to Barney Faggot and the rest of those who would have the government wipe our asses and take away our freedoms in order to allow their proclivities to reign supreme.

Finally, in my experience, Liberals do have a more open mind, since it is filled with empty, idealistic dreams that fail to account for any view other than their own narrow agendas. The democratic party was never liberal. They were more conservative than the Republicans could ever imagine. It was during the post war years when America became a land of plenty that the Democratic party embraced the radical liberal camp, nay, any camp to build numbers to compete with the Republican successes. The liberalization of the democtratic party is a relative new concept, led by those who responded favorably to a liberal bent press that began to immerge during the 1970's. George W. Bush is, by my count, the 43d President of these United States. Only fourteen presidents have been actual democrats, and out of those, only two have been the new Liberals: James Carter and William Jefferson Clinton. Does that tell you anything?

The responsibility of any democratic government is the maintenance of its citizens in the manner of security, safety and luxury they demand. Our nation supresses much of the world's citizens by default. That is, we can afford the goods they can only wish for. I think we are a very generous nation, and prove that under any administration by way of gifts and food and technology and human sacrifice. I have traveled to more than 100 countries and possessions during my lifetime. I have seen abject poverty that would shock most Americans out of their designer shoes. Yet, I have not seen it where the direct cause was not one of three categories: 1.) Corrupt or subjugating government. 2.) Religious control or subjugation. 3.) Lack of basic natural resources.

You are not a liberal, Marty, just another ball-busting husband and father trying to provide for his own. Your awareness about the environment and the plight of the third world nations is not a liberal concept, either. We are all aware of those problems and the desperation to which they lead. May I remind you, though, it is the world's conservative institutions that address those ills: the American and International Red Cross, the Salvation Army, a Collective of Religions and sects and the Western Governments whose conservatism led to their successes. Until the leaders of those impoverished nations take steps to bring their world into the 21st Century, we are at the grandest Catch 22 in the history of our species. You see, in order to modernize those poor countries, the energy and industrial expenditure required would be the final straw on the back of the environmental camel.

P.S. Liberals don't have the most open minds. Conservatives do. Otherwise, being the majority, they would just stamp out liberalism..........lol.

There, I've said my piece. Darn you Marty. Back in June, I said I wasn't going to get involved in this kind of philosophical banter. Now I went and done it to spite myself. If I keep this up, the next sculpture may never get finished...lol

Bill

Isn't this more fun than paint schedules though? (lol) Again, your ability to articulate is unmatched. Some of things you have mentioned have brought some clarity to my understandings or perhaps misunderstandings of our government and how we interact with other nations. Some things I still have a different percpective than yours. Unfortunately, I've got to scoot to my "real job" and don't have the time now to respond to some of your points. But, I will - regardless if I find out my facts are not in order. I appreciate you taking the time to read it. And all in all, you didn't rip me all that much (I CAN sit down!) LOL!

Cur

This response submitted by christoforo on 10/12/01. ( ) 205.164.128.50

Very good reply,congratulations. This forum needs info like you provided. Paragraph 7 , part 4 sounds like the ,"new world order, one world goverement under the UN", stuff, i hope not. Marty What state do you live in ? Do you live in the "boonies " or a metro area ? If you lived in Boston you would be the only taxidermist in the area and wouldn't need a "real" job.

NWO? Never!

There is a huge difference in universal morality and unified communication and one world government. I did not intend to imply the surrender of sovereignty, or nations, but rather that one solution would be for a single language to provide a communication base for clarity and emphasis. (By all considerations, it would probably be english, so we wouldn't have to go back to school.).lol. English is already the mainstay language of international business. In fact, many nations require english study in the elementry school.

I would never surrender the flag and standard of our nation to a single world order. We are the unified peoples of the world. without the United States and the social experiment it displays, there would not be a concept of that order. Like the prez sezs, the cold war is over. It is a time for new treaties and new relationships...just as it is a time to wipe out the regimes who shake that newfound basis for trust and prosperity.

Hmm

But,Marty your inner conflict and confusion sounds much like my brother-in-law. He's against big government, but he's a democrat. He loves to hunt and fish, but he hates the NRA. He can't understandwhy the youth of America is going through a Moral degredation, but He see's nothing wrong with what Clinton did in his spare time in the oval office. He thinks there should be more laws, but he loves to smoke a joint once and a while, (just to take the edge off).He thinks Bush is an enemy of the envirnment, but He drives the biggest truck he could get and complains about the price of gasoline.Are you sure your name isn't Tom?TonyAnd Richard I'm sorry about Mass, but thanks for the shirt

And while we're there...

This response submitted by George on 10/12/01. ( georoof@aol.com ) 172.155.30.57

Marty,So you aren't an NRA member on principle? For someone railing to the world against the stigma of being ascribed as a "liberal", maybe you wouldn't mind telling us exactly WHAT an assault weapon is. Boxer and Feinstein include that warm fuzzy jargon along with their "Saturday night specials". Some pretty heinous assaults have been accredited to kitchen knives (Jack the Ripper), a hatchet (Lizzy Borden), and now the new crew on the block does a pretty fair job with Boeing 757's. The finest weapons of war were carried aboard a B-29 called "Enola Gay". If you don't think eradication of the Second Amendment is just the first step in eliminating them all, you need to crawl back in your safe cocoon of liberal thinking about the few knowing what's best for the masses. To use a word from my vernacular, it's call "Bleeding Hearts" and they rationalize rather than justify. Democracy is one person, one vote, majority rules. Liberalism took that all away and minorities (who the hell ever they are or their cause de jour is today) now have a larger say than their votes should count for. Just imagine how Sept. 11 would have been recorded in history had all the passengers had "Saturday night specials" and the highjackers had case cutters? Now THAT, dear Marty, would have shown what real Democracy stands for.